The different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism keep their
identity through a particular lineage of teachers. Sometimes misunderstanding
occurs because the teacher confines his studies to the literature of his own
tradition. However, the philosophical differences are so subtle that they are
extremely difficult to grasp in the right perspective.

Jamgon Kongtrul the Great, one of the leading
scholars of the nineteenth century, broke the sectarian confinement and forged a
deep understanding of rival philosophies. With great courage and ability, this
fine scholar compiled the basic teachings of all Tibetan Buddhist Schools in his
encyclopaedic work "The Five Great Treasures". This work saved the traditions
from destruction during the recent cultural crisis in Tibet.

The paper will mainly discuss the principle of
"Rimé"( Wylie: Ris-med )in Jamgon
Kongtrul's view on debated subjects such as, Rangtong and
Shentongphilosophies and criticisms on New and Old
Tantric Schools.

<> <>
<> <> <> <> <>

THE RIMÉ ( Ris-med )
MOVEMENT OF JAMGON
KONGTRUL THE GREAT

byRingu Tulku

In the 1970's I was doing research work
ontheRimé(Wylie, Ris-Med
)Movement.
This gave me the opportunity to meet and interview a number of prominent Tibetan
Lamas, including His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and the heads of the four main
Schools of Tibetan Buddhism. I prepared a questionnaire. One of the questions I
asked was whether they believed that other Schools of Buddhism showed the way to
attain Buddhahood. I have never been so rebuked in my life as when I asked that
question! All of them, without exception, were shocked and felt insulted, deeply
saddened that I, a monk, could ever have such doubts. They would not speak with
me until I persuaded them to believe that this was one of those unimportant,
procedural questions that are part of the modern University
system.

"How can you say
such a thing?" they rebuked me. "All Schools of Buddhism practise the teachings
of the Lord Buddha. Moreover, the Schools of Buddhism in Tibet have even more
common ground. They all base their main practice on AnuttaraTantraof Vajrayana. Madhyamikais their philosophy; they all base their monastic rules on the
Sarvastivadinschool of Vinaya.

One of the unique features of Buddhism has always been the
acceptance that different paths are necessary for different types of people.
Just as one medicine cannot cure all diseases, so one set of teachings cannot
help all beings - this is the basic principle of Buddhism.

One chooses the most appropriate Sutras and / or
Tantras from the Buddhist Canon and bases one's own practices on these. This is
the origin of different Schools in Buddhism. There are no "sects" in Buddhism
because there are no break-away groups from the main School. Different lineages
came into being even among those who practised the same
teachings.

In Tibet, like
other places, these different Schools practised and studied in their own
isolated environments and thereby lost much of the contact with other Schools
and lineages. Non-communication breeds misunderstanding. Even where there was no
misunderstanding or disrespect to other Schools, some practitioners, in their
ardent enthusiasm to keep their own lineages pure and undiluted, went so far as
to refuse any teachings from the masters of other lineages, and would not study
the texts of other Schools. Ignorance is the most fertile ground for growing
doubts and misconceptions. This is the area where the Rimé movement of Jamgon
Kongtrul (1813-1899) and Jamyang Khentse (1820-1892) had most to
contribute.

What is
"Rimé"?

Ris
or Phyog-ris in Tibetan means "one-sided", "partisan" or "sectarian". Med means "No". Ris-med
(Wylie), or Rimé, therefore means "no sides", "non-partisan" or
"non-sectarian". It does not mean "non-conformist" or "non-committal"; nor does
it mean forming a new School or system that is different from the existing ones.
A person who believes the Riméway almost certainly follows
one lineage as his or her main practice. He or she would not dissociate from the
School in which he or she was raised. Kongtrul was raised in the Nyingma and
Kagyu traditions; Khentse was reared in a strong Sakyapa tradition. They never
failed to acknowledge their affiliation to their own
Schools.

Rimé is not a way of
uniting different Schools and lineages by emphasising their similarities. It is
basically an appreciation of their differences and an acknowledgement of the
importance of having this variety for the benefit of practitioners with
different needs. Therefore the Riméteachers always take
great care that the teachings and practices of the different Schools and
lineages and their unique styles do not become confused with one another. To
retain the original style and methods of each teaching lineage preserves the
power of that lineage experience. Kongtrul and Khentse made great efforts to
retain the original flavour of each teaching, while making them available to
many.Kongtrul writes about
Khentse in his biography of the latter.

"Many people these days become involved and confused in the
assertion and negation of so-called philosophical differences such as Rangtong
and Shentong, etc. They try to win everybody over to their side to the point of
breaking their necks! When he (Khentse Rinpoche) taught, he would give the
teachings of each lineage clearly and intelligibly without confusing the terms
and concepts of other teachings. He would then advise his students and would
say:

'The ultimate subject
we need to define is the Ultimate Nature, or Dharmata, of phenomena. The
Prajna-paramita Sutra says, "Dharmata is not knowable (with the intellectual
mind) and cannot be perceived in concepts". Even Ngog Lotsawa, the jewel on the
head of all Tibetan logicians, says, "The Ultimate Truth is not only beyond the
dimension of language and expression, but it is also beyond intellectual
understanding". The Ultimate Nature cannot be fully measured by our samsaric
mind. The great saints (Siddhas) and scholars
examined it from different aspects, and each of the ways outlined by them has
many reasons and logical sequences. If we follow the tradition of our own
lineage and study our own lineage masters in depth, we shall find no need to
feel sectarian. However, if we confuse the terms and systems of different
traditions, or if we try to introduce the ways of other systems because we do
not have a deep understanding of our own tradition, we shall surely make our
minds as muddled as the yarns of a bad weaver. The problem of being unable to
explain our own traditional teachings arises out of ignorance of our own
studies. If this happens, we lose our confidence in our own traditions; neither
are we able to copy from others. We become a laughing stock for other scholars.
Therefore it is best to understand thoroughly the teachings of our own
School.'

This way we can see
the harmony of all paths. All teachings can be seen as instructions and
therefore the roots of sectarian feelings should shrivel and die. The Lord
Buddha's teachings will take root in our minds. The doors to the 84,000 groups
of teachings will open up at one time."

The Rimé concept was not
original to Kongtrul and Khentse - neither were they new to Buddhism! The Lord
Buddha forbade his students even to criticise the teachings and teachers of
other religions and cultures. The message was so strong and unambiguous that
Chandra Kirti had to defend Nagarjuna's treatises on Madhyamika by saying, "If,
by trying to understand the truth, you dispel the misunderstandings of some
people and thereby some philosophies are damaged - that cannot be taken as
criticising the views of others" (Madhyamika-avatara). A true Buddhist cannot be
but non-sectarian and Rimé in their
approach.

Doctrinal
Disputes

Why then, are
there so many debates and criticisms among the different Schools of Buddhism?
There is an old saying in Tibetan:

"ITa.wa.mThun.na.mKhas.pa.min.
dGongs.pa.ma.mThun.na.Grub.thob.min."

"If two philosophers agree, one is not a philosopher. If
two saints disagree, one is not a saint."

It is accepted that all realised beings have the same
experience but the problem is how to describe this to others. Almost all debates
are basically concerned with ways of using language. For example, the main
debate between Sautrantika and Prasangika Madhyamikas is whether to use
Don.dam.par, (ultimately), or not. For example, whether to
say, "The form is
empty" or "The form is ultimately empty".

The legendary, ten-year debate between Chandra Kirti and Chandra Gomin is
a good example. Both of these masters are regarded as realised beings by all
sides. What were they debating then? They debated on how to phrase the teachings
to present the least danger of misinterpretation.

Rangtong and Shentong

There has been a great deal of heated debate in
Tibet between the exponents of Rangtong, (Wylie, Rang-stong) and Shentong, (Wylie,
gZhen-stong)philosophies. The
historic facts of these two philosophies are well known to the Tibetologists.
This is what Kongtrul has to say about the two systems:

"Rangtong and Shentong Madhyamika philosophies
have no differences in realising as 'Shunyata', all phenomena that we experience
on a relative level. They have no differences also, in reaching the meditative
state where all extremes (ideas) completely dissolve. Their difference lies in
the words they use to describe the Dharmata. Shentong describes the Dharmata,
the mind of Buddha, as 'ultimately real'; while Rangtong philosophers fear that
if it is described that way, people might understand it as the concept of 'soul'
or 'Atma'. The Shentong philosopher believes that there is a more serious
possibility of misunderstanding in describing the Enlightened State as 'unreal'
and 'void'. Kongtrul finds the Rangtong way of presentation the best to dissolve
concepts and the Shentong way the best to describe the
experience."

Nyingma
and Sarma

Kongtrul dealt
in the same way with the problems of the Old and New Translation of Tantras.
Kongtrul said that there are two reasons why these Tantras are genuine. Firstly,
the original Sanskrit versions were found and secondly, both the old and the new
translations of Tantras have the same perspectives and understanding. Kongtrul
has made this very clear in his works Vol.Ta entitled
ITa.wai.'Bel.gTam.

"Thus
the Mahamudra path was clearly stated in all Sutras and Tantras. It is the same
as the Sems.sde. teachings of Zogpa Chenpo. The five great
Sakyapa Lamas also stood for the ultimate Madhyamika philosophy and the
Mahamudra view. Although Sakya Pandita criticised (some aspects of Kagyu way of
practices) his actual views are clearly stated in bDag.med.bTod.'Grel. The final view of Je Tsongkhapa is also indisputably the
same as Zogpa Chenpo. Please refer to Shus.len.bDud.tsi. sMan.mChog."

TheRimé understanding of Buddhist paths is clearly
described by a highly respected Nyingma Master of the eleventh century, Rangzom
Chokyi Zangpo.

"All the
teachings of Buddha are of one taste, one way - all leading to the truth, all
arriving at the truth. Although there are different Yanas, they neither
contradict each other nor reject the basis of each other. The things that are
fully made clear in the lower Yanas are neither changed nor rejected by the
higher Yanas but accepted as they are. The points that are not made completely
clear in the lower Yanas are made clear in the higher Yanas but the basic
structure is not changed and none of the points that are already clear are
contradicted. Therefore different Yanas and Schools do not go in different
directions and they do not arrive at different conclusions". (Rough
translation)

"See harmony in all doctrines. Receive instructions from
all teachings."

This is one
of the most important sayings of the Kadampa masters.

If we examine the lives of the great masters of
any School we find how many teachers of different Schools and lineages they
studied with and how much respect they had for them. The conflicts between lamas
and monasteries, and sometimes regions of Tibet, are often presented these days
as religious or doctrinal conflicts. However, almost none of them have anything
to do with basic doctrinal or even philosophical disagreements. Most of these
conflicts were based on personality problems or mundane establishment
rivalries.

The
Rimé movement of Kongtrul and Khentse was not a new concept, but
it was a timely and unique movement with great consequences. A great portion of
Buddhist literature would have been lost but for the efforts of these two
luminaries to preserve it. Although Khentse was the source of inspiration and
greatly contributed towards this effort, it was Kongtrul who actually put
together the gigantic work, "The Five Great Treasures". The
compilation and transmission of the teachings of "The Five Great Treasures" of Kongtrul, together with sGrub.thabs.kun.bTus and rGyud.bDe.kun.bTus.,broke the isolation of single lineage teachings
in the majority of Tibetan Buddhist Schools. A tradition of receiving the
teachings of various lineages and Schools from one teacher in one place became
established.

Take the
example of gDams.ngag.mZod.
A compendium of most of the
essential teachings of all the eight Practice lineages (sGrub.brGyud.Shing.ta.brGyad) is now preserved in one lineage. Teachings of
these kinds have become not only common, but popular among the masters of all
Schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

The great success in this field also goes to the fact that Kongtrul gave
these teachings himself, many times over, to a wide range of students, from the
heads of Schools to the humblest of lay practitioners There were many among his
wide range of students who could spread the lineage in their own Schools and
monasteries. Kongtrul was also able to have almost all of his major works
published (wood blocks) while he was still alive. When Tibetans came out of
India in 1959, the full set of "The Five Great Treasures" of Kongtrul was
available. H.H. the Karmapa and H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche started to give the
teachings of different collections in India from 1960-61 onwards. The only
Tibetan books Chogyam Trungpa brought to Europe when he and Akong Rinpoche first
came to England in the early 1960's, were a set of Kongtrul's She-bya.dZod (Treasury of Knowledge) besides their daily
practices.

His Holiness, XIV
Dalai Lama, has been strongly influenced by some great Riméteachers such as Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche and the
3rd Dodrupchen Tenpe Nyima. Due to their efforts in recent years, there has been
more interchange of teachings amongst different Schools of Tibetan Buddhism than
ever before. Following the traditions of Rimé,the Dalai
Lama has been receiving and giving teachings of all Schools in their respective
traditions and lineages.